2. Now regarding the second question: "Because karmas
are not visible to us they are not existent". We cannot say this, because
many things exist which though we may not see them yet they are in others'
sight. Therefore, it is wrong to say that 'Karmas do not exist because
they cannot be seen by anyone'. The reason is, first of all, where have we
seen all the jivas in the world so that we may know whether there is not
one of them who has seen karmas? Even in visible jivas are we able to see
knowledge--of what nature and to which extent? This we cannot see. Morever
how can we say "In future too there will be none who can see karmas"?
Therefore, it is not proper to disbelieve the existence of karmas.

Bhagavan Mahavir says to Agnibhutil 'you might have
thought that there are "Three reasons for the existence of karmas being
logically improbable:"

"The thing like Karma is improbable". Behind this
statement are these three reasons:

(a) There is nothing like soul taking rebirth, and
hence who can carry on karmas in the next life?

(b) Let there be any one who may take a rebirth, but
karmas are above rational comprehension. They cannot be brought within
the scope of rational understanding, testing, and verification.

(c) Or, it can be said that all things take place in
this world because of the 'nature' of the things. Therefore where is the
need for believing in karmas?

Refutation of these three reasons

(I-1 ) If there is nothing like one who goes to the
next birth, then who will carry karmas with him? And for this life karmas
are useless and inefficacious". We cannot say this because the soul taking
another birth has been proved. It is for this reason that the Vedic
statements like "they who desire to go to heaven, should perform the
Agnihotra yajna etc." which you believe to be true are logical and
relevant. If the soul does not at all exist, who would go to heaven by
performing the yajna.

(I-2) Karmas are beyond intellectual analysis, because
here the question is of what nature will you believe karmas?

'Sanimittak' karmas i.e. produced from cause or 'Animittak',
karmas those created without cause?

1. 'Animittak: those created without any cause.

2. 'Sanimittak: produced by causes and reasons.

Of these two points,

(a) the first one cannot be believed in, because if
karmas can arise naturally without a cause, then why is it that such 'Animittak'
karmas are not produced in those who have attained Moksa (salvation)? Or
why is it that 'Animittak' karmas are not being produced always? If so,
nobody can attain moksa at any time.

(b) Regarding the second point, of Sanimittak'
karmas, we shall have to think over the three causes by which karmas are
produced.

The three causes that create Karmas

1. Karmas arise from violence; or

2. They arise from attachment and hatred; or

3. They arise from other karmas.

Now thinking over these three, we shall see how each of
them is not rational.

Why is it that those who with much cruelty slaughter a
lot of animals and cut them to pieces with sharp implements, and also
those who impel others to do so, are seen to enjoy happiness? They are
bound by dangerous sins (inauspicious karmas) on account of their violent
activities: then owing to their karmas they should be in great pain and
anguish; but on the contrary they seem happy. As opposed to this, why are
those who are always engaged in the worship of Tirthankar Parmatma,
penances and austerities etc. and who being merciful do not harm even the
smallest creatures like ants, lead a life of poverty and adversity? Why
so? Auspicious karmas created by worship, mercy, penances, non-violence
etc. must bring happiness to them. Hence this doctrine that bad karmas are
born out of violence, and good karmas are born out of worship, penances
and mercy etc., is not appealing. Therefore the doctrine of karmas that
they are created by violence does not remain logical. Hence it is not
valid.

(b)As regards the second point, if you say, "the karma]
is created by attachment and hatred," then the question is how do those
attachments and hatred originate and from what source? If it is from
karmas then we cannot say from present karmas they originate. If we say
that they originate from the karmas of the previous life, moksa will have
no scope no meaning, because according to this theory, attachment and
hatred arise from karmas and karmas arise from attachment and hatred.
Consequently this endless cycle will continue further and further for
infinity and moksa will never be attained. If moksa is never to happen
then the shastras are meaningless.

(c)As regards the third point, if you say that karma
arises from karma, then this process coming down through generations, from
times immemorial, will continue likewise in the future forever, and there
can be no possibility of moksa

Hence from the point of rationality, a thing like karma
does not seem to exist.

"If there is no such thing as karma, the question
arises as to how can strange particular effects and peculiar actions be
created? One child is born with a golden spoon in his mouth, while another
child cannot get even enough breast-milk from its mother. Why is this
difference? We may say that it happens accidentally or by chance, without
any cause. Instead of this chance if we believe in the karmas, we have to
face conflicts of ideas.

A Refutation of the Theory that "Effects are created
accidentally:"

In the theory that effects and activities arise
accidentally, what does the word "accidentally" mean?

1. They arise without a cause;

2. They arise naturally;

3. They arise not on account of any external causes,
but they arise automatically of their own accord. This is called
Swatma-hetu (it being the cause itself);

4. Not on account of any cause but on account of some
unreal substance (the effect is produced).

"Effect happens without a cause" this is a wrong
statement, a wrong view We find everywhere that for an effect a cause has
to be searched for, or obtained. It means if the cause is present, then
only the effect comes into existence; for example if there is fire, then
only there is smoke. It means, smoke can be obtained only from fire, curds
is obtained only from milk, butter only from curds.

If everything happens by nature, e.g. the flame of fire
goes vertically upwards only, the wind blows horizontally only, fire gives
heat only and water gives coolness only, this is natural. The thorn is
naturally sharp and pointed. If so, what is then the meaning of 'nature?'

The four meanings of nature:

Nature means own--'Bhava'

(a) It may be the quality of an object;

(b) it may be the existence of an object;

(c) it may be the special object, or

(d) it may be its own nature, namely
time-modification (modifications regarding various time-created
substances.

(1) Now 'natural' means they originate from the quality
of the substance; but how can the quality exist without a substance that
has never existed before its birth? And without the quality, how could
that substance itself arise previously? If nature in the form of quality
is deemed a different reality, then it is identical with karma. Is it not?

(2) If we consider the existence only of a substance,
as its nature, then what is this existence? Excepting the substance,
nothing is to be brought from outside, as the existence.

The substance will be considered as the effect only and
consequently, it means, its existence uptil now was not there at all. So
how can it be worthwhile to say that the substance creates itself.

(3) By the name of 'Nature' if you mean the special
object, then here the question arises "what is this special object?" Is it
a substance (dravya) or an attribute (guna) or the action of being
produced? These three are impossible. If it is a separate object from
these three, then it would mean the object is created from a different
cause (but not from nature). Then how could it be called as created on
account of its own nature?

(4) If nature means time-modification of the substance
and if a substance is born out of that nature, then how is it that the
substances arising at the same time are dissimilar? How can there be
dissimilarity in effects if there is no dissimilarity in causes?

Thus 'everything is created by nature' is a wrong
statement.

Now,

3. Everything is Self-Caused: It is not sensible to say
that something arises from its own self Here two forms come before us: the
own self is the cause-form and the substance is the effect form. If we say
that something arises from its own self, then it is presumed for the
creation of its own self, that original own self as the cause-form existed
earlier. If the effect form is the same as the cause-form and the cause-
form exists, then what remains for the effect-form to emerge? Which
cause-form created the effect-form? Then it means that there is no such
original form. How can a substance arise from its own self?

4. "Origin from an unreal source". This also is wrong.
If in this world there is no substance at all like ''unreal'', then what
is the meaning of creation from "unreal"? How can any thing originate from
any unreal one? Such creation from unreal is something like an object
arising from a donkey-horn which does not exist at all and which is
unreal. Even if such an origin is accepted, where is the necessity for (a)
someone to remain poor? (b)someone to remain hungry? (c)some to remain
sick? Why should they suffer from poverty, hunger and disease? Because
money, food, and health will then arise from the unreal. If the effects
originate from an unreal cause, then their creations must also be similar
but why should there be such dissimilar phases as childhood at one time,
youth at another time? Or why is it not that similar- dissimilar things
may appear simultaneously as cold and heat, health and disease, life and
death?

It is, therefore, absolutely wrong to say that an
effect arises accidentally (without a cause).

Three Ways for the origin of Karmas: Now we may see
that karmas originate from

1. violence,

2. attachments and hatred, and

3 other karmas. These three ways of the origin of
karmas are logical and reasonable.

Punyanubandhi -papanubandhi kalmas:

1. Karmas are of two kinds namely (a) punyanubandhi (
i(a) papanubandhi. The punyanubandhi karmas are those which when ripen
manifest their fruit but at the same time create such conditions for the
jiva concerned that would be for earning merits and punya The papanubandhi
karma is that which when ripens, impels the jiva concerned to develop
sinful propensities. Among the karmas that we experience, some are
auspicious, some are inauspicious. Thus there are four kinds of karmas
namely:

Those persons who in spite of being violent, heartless,
cruel and wicked in this life are at present happy are under the influence
of the ripening of Papanubandhi punya 'Papanubandhi' punya means the good
luck mixed with sinful impressions and propensities. Karma-binding is not
created in this life and it does not ripen so quickly. Those jivas that
earned punya, viz. good luck in their previous birth by means of charity,
benevolence, self-restraint like celibacy, spiritual austerities, devotion
and worshipping God etc. but who performed all these with the vicious aims
of wordly pleasure and ambitions, enjoy wealth and happiness in this life
on account of ripening of their good luck but on the other hand they also
carry evil thoughts in their mind and remain engrossed in committing
sinful actions like violence etc. on account of their previous vicious
aims.

Those who performed religious ceremonies in the
previous birth but with mean ambitions, sensual pleasures or with a view
to take revenge etc., their wicked impressions continue in this life due
to which illusory infatuation, attachments and sensual desires arise in
this birth. On the contrary, those who have committed sins in the previous
birth with disgust towards them and who repented their sins and at the
same time performed pious religious actions, as the fruit of sins they
have to experience sorrow in this life but at the same time on account of
their previous repentance of sinful acts, they get opportunities to come
in contact with Sadhus who are noble spiritual heads, and are also engaged
in noble learning, noble thoughts and noble religious spiritual activities
and austerities. They exercise the practice of virtues as also they
acquire virtues. Thus they are earning punyas (good lucks) as their new
spiritual wealth. This is the result of punyanubandhi-Papakanna, and on
account of this the jivas experience sorrows on one hand and on the other
they acquire such virtues as kindness, good conduct, spiritual activities,
benevolence, nobility and devotion to and worshipping the lotus- like feet
of Paramatma. All these good actions and virtues will bring them fruit in
their next birth.

In normal wordly life, we find that those who eat
sweetmeats etc. beyond the limit at functions or marriage ceremonies etc.
fall ill the next day and will have to fast. When someone says about such
a person on the day he is fasting that "he has not eaten anything today
yet he is ill, why?", and if he makes the rule that "illness is caused by
eating less", this rule would be wrong. In the same manner, if a person
has excellent vigour and strength, if he eats something that causes
illness or eats more than necessary and yet if he looks strong and
healthy, here it will be wrong to make the rule "One becomes happy and
healthy by eating too much food and sweetmeats etc." Because here health
or disease is not the result of present activities of eating more or less
but it is the result of such previous activity, whereas the present
activity will produce their results in the future. In the same manner
understand this, in respect of activities of even dharma and adharma as
well as punya and papa (virtue and sin).

Therefore, there is no harm in saying that karmas
destinies) arise from violence etc.